Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Note from Robert Spencer: The “moderate” Muslim never dies, and I thought that this 2004 Hugh Fitzgerald discussion of the “moderate Muslim” bears re-posting now. There are some references clearly reflecting the year of composition, but not a word has been changed, for it has stood, we think, the test of time — certainly compared to any comment by Tom Friedman or Nicholas Kristof, all of whose jejune columns are undone by reality about a week after they are published.

1. Not only Muslims, but “islamochristians” objectively promote and push the propagandistic line that disguises the Jihad (evidence of which can be found worldwide), and mislead as to both what prompts that Jihad (not “poverty” or “foreign policy” but the precepts of the belief-system of Islam) and what will sate it (not Kashmir, not Chechnya, not the absurd “two-state solution,” not continued appeasement in France and Holland — there is nothing that will sate or satisfy it, as long as part of the globe is as yet resistent to the rule of Islam). “Christians” such as Fawaz Gerges or Rami Khoury, or someone who was born a Christian, such as Edward Said, are Arabs whose views are colored by that self-perception. Their loyalty to the community and history of Arabs causes them to be as loyal to the Islamic view of things as if they had been born Muslim. They stoutly defend Islam against all of Western scholarship (in Orientalism), or divert attention away from Islam and constantly assert, in defiance of all the evidence, from Bali to Beslan to Madrid, that the “problem of Israel/Palestine” — the latest, and most sinister formulation of the Jihad against Israel — is the fons et origo of Muslim hostility and murderous aggression throughout the world. Save for the Copts and Maronites, who regard themselves not as Arabs but as “users” of the “Arabic language” (and reject the idea that such “users” therefore become “Arabs”), many Arab Christians have crazily embraced the Islamic agenda; the agenda, that is, of those who have made the lives of Christians in the Middle East so uncertain, difficult, and at times, imperilled. The attempt to be “plus islamiste que les islamistes” — the approach of Rami Khoury and Hanan Ashrawi — simply will not do, for it has not worked. It is Habib Malik and other Maronites in Lebanon who have analysed the problem of Islam in a clear-eyed fashion. Indeed, the best book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam is that of the Lebanese (Maronite) scholar Antoine Fattal.

Any “islamochristian” Arab who promotes the Islamic agenda, by participating in a campaign that can only mislead Infidels and put off their understanding of Jihad and its various instruments, is objectively as much part of the problem as the Muslim who knowingly practices taqiyya in order to turn aside the suspicions of non-Muslims. Whoever acts so as to keep the unwary Infidel unwary is helping the enemy.

Think, for a minute, of Oskar Schindler. A member of the Nazi Party, but hardly someone who followed the Nazi line. But what if Schindler had at some point met with Westerners — and had continued, himself, to deny that the Nazis were engaged in genocide, even if he himself deplored it and would later act against it? Would we think of him as a “moderate”? As someone who had helped the anti-Nazi coalition to understand what it was up against?

Or for another example, think of Ilya Ehrenburg, who in 1951 or so was sent abroad by Stalin to lie about the condition of Yiddish-speaking intellectuals whom Stalin had recently massacred. Ehrenburg went to France, went to Italy. He did as he was told. “Peretz? Markish? Oh, yes, saw Peretz at his dacha last month with his grandson. Such a jovial fellow. Markish — he was great last year in Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District — you should see how it comes across in zhargon, Yiddish…” And so it went. Eherenburg lied, and lied. He was not a Stalinist. He hated Stalin. He of course hated the destruction of Peretz, Markish, and many others who had been killed many months before — as Ehrenburg knew perfectly well. When he went abroad and lied to the editors of Nouvelle Revue Francaise, what was he? Objectively, he was promoting the interests of Joseph Stalin, and the Red Army, and the Politburo. We need not inquire into motives. We need only see what the results of such lying were. And the same is true of those Christian Arabs who lie on behalf of Islam — some out of fear, some out of an ethnocentric identification so strong that they end up defending Islam, the religion of those who persecuted the Christian Arabs of the Middle East, and some out of venality (if Western diplomats and journalists can be on the Arab take, why not Arabs themselves?), some out of careerism. If you want to rise in the academic ranks, and your field is the Middle East, unless you are a real scholar — Cook or Crone or Lewis — better to parrot the party line, which costs you nothing and gains you friends in tenure-awarding, grant-giving, reference-writing circles. There is at least one example, too, among those mentioned, in a situation where an Arabic-speaking Christian, attempting to find refuge from Muslim persecution, needed the testimony of an “expert” — which “expert,” instead of offering a pro-bono samaritan act, demanded so much money to be involved (in a fantastic display of greed) that the very idea of solidarity among Arab Christians was called by this act permanently into question.

2. The word “moderate” cannot be reasonably applied to any Muslim who continues to deny the contents — the real contents, not the sanitized or gussied-up contents — of Qur’an, hadith, and sira. Whether that denial is based on ignorance, or based on embarrassment, or based on filial piety (and an unwillingness to wash dirty ideological laundry before the Infidels) is irrelevant. Any Muslim who, while seeming to deplore every aspect of Muslim aggression, based on clear textual sources in Qur’an and hadith, or on the example of Muhammad as depicted in the accepted sira — Muhammad that “model” of behavior — is again, objectively, acting in a way that simply misleads the Infidels. And any Muslim who helps to mislead Infidels about the true nature of Islam cannot be called a “moderate.” That epithet is simply handed out a bit too quickly for sensible tastes.

3. What of a Muslim who says — there are terrible things in the sira and hadith, and we must find a way out, so that this belief-system can focus on the rituals of individual worship, and offer some sustenance as a simple faith for simple people? This would require admitting that a great many of Muhammad’s reported acts must either be denied, or given some kind of figurative interpretation, or otherwise removed as part of his “model” life. As for the hadith, somehow one would have to say that Bukhari, and Muslim, and the other respected muhaddithin had not examined those isnad-chains with quite the right meticulousness, and that many of the hadith regarded as “authentic” must be reduced to the status of “inauthentic.” And, following Goldziher, doubt would have to be cast on all of the hadith, as imaginative elaborations from the Qur’an, without any necessarily independent existence.

4. This leaves the Qur’an. Any “moderate” who wishes to prevent inquiry into the origins of the Qur’an — whether it may be the product of a Christian sect, or a Jewish sect, or of pagan Arabs who decided to construct a book, made up partly of Christian and Jewish material mixed with bits and pieces of pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliya — or to prevent philological study (of, for example, Aramaic and other loan-words) — anyone who impedes the enterprise of subjecting the Qur’an to the kind of historical inquiry that the Christian and Jewish Bibles have undergone in the past 200 years of inquiry, is not a “moderate” but a fervent Defender of the Faith. One unwilling to encourage such study — which can only lead to a move away from literalness for at least some of the Believers — again is not “moderate.”

5. The conclusion one must reach is that there are, in truth, very few moderates. For if one sees the full meaning of Qur’an, hadith, and sira, and sees how they have affected the behavior of Muslims both over 1400 years of conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and in stunting the development — political, economic, moral, and intellectual — of Muslims everywhere, it is impossible not to conclude that this imposing edifice is not in any sense moderate or susceptible to moderation.

What must an intelligent Muslim, living through the hell of the Islamic Republic of Iran, start to think of Islam? Or that Kuwaiti billionaire, with houses in St. James Place and Avenue Foch and Vevey, as well as the family/company headquarters in Kuwait City, who sends his children to the American School in Kuwait, and boasts that they know English better than they know Arabic, helps host Fouad Ajami when he visits Kuwait, is truly heartsick to see Kuwait’s increasing islamization? Would he allow himself to say what he knows in public, or in front of half-brothers, or to friends — knowing that at any moment, they may be scandalized by his free-thinking views, and that he may run the risk of losing his place in the family’s pecking order and, what’s more, in the family business?

The mere fact that Muslim numbers may grow in the Western world represents a permanent threat to Infidels. This is true even if some, or many, of those Muslims are “moderates” — i.e. do not believe that Islam has some kind of divine right, and need, to expand until it covers the globe and swallows up dar al-harb. For if they are still to be counted in the Army of Islam, not as Deserters (Apostates) from that Army, their very existence in the Bilad al-kufr helps to swell Muslim ranks, and therefore perceived Muslim power. And even the “moderate” father may sire immoderate children or grandchildren — that was the theme of the Hanif Kureishi film, quasi-comic but politically acute, “My Son the Fanatic.” Whether through Da’wa or large families, any growth in the Muslim population will inhibit free expression (see the fates of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the threats made to Geert Wilders, Carl Hagen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others), for politicians eager to court the Muslim vote will pooh-pooh Muslim outrages and strive to have the state yield to Muslim demands — for the sake of short-term individual gain. And Muslim numbers, even with “moderates,” increases the number of Muslim missionaries — for every Muslim is a missionary — whether conducting “Sharing Ramadan” Outreach in the schools (where a soft-voiced Pakistani woman is usually the soothing propagandist of choice), or Da’wa in a prison. The more Muslims there are, the more there will be — and no one knows which “moderate” will end up distinctly non-moderate in his views, and then in his acts.

And this brings up the most important problem: the impermanence of “moderate” attitudes. What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the “fanatics,” if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a “renegade” or apostate, will at some point “revert” not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?

6. The examples to the contrary are both those of individuals, and of whole societies. As for individual Muslims, some started out as mild-mannered and largely indifferent to Islam, and then underwent some kind of crisis and reverted to a much more fanatical brand of Islam. That was the case with urban planner Mohammad Atta, following his disorienting encounter with modern Western ways in Hamburg, Germany — Reeperbahn and all. That was also the case with “Mike” Hawash, the Internet engineer earning $360,000 a year, who seemed completely integrated (American wife, Little League for the children, friends among fellow executives at Intel who would swear up and down that he was innocent) — until one fine day, after the World Trade Center attacks, he made out his will, signed the house over to his wife, and set off to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (he got as far as China) against his fellow Americans. In other words, if fanatical Muslims exist, it does not mean that they all start out as fanatics. Islam is the necessary starting place, and what sets off a “moderate” may have little to do with anything the Infidels do, any question of foreign policy — it may simply be a crisis in an individual Muslim’s life, to which he seeks an answer, not surprisingly, in … more Islam.

7. Much the same lesson can be drawn from the experience of whole societies. In passing, one can note that the position of Infidels under the Pahlavi regime was better than it had been for centuries — and under the regime that followed, that of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that position of Infidels became worse than it had been for centuries. “Secularism” in Islamic countries is never permanent; the weight and the threat of Islam is ever-present.

The best example of this is Turkey since 1924, when Ataturk began his reforms. He tried in every way he could — through the Hat Act (banishing the salat-friendly fez); commissioning a Turkish translation of the Qur’an and an accompanying tafsir (commentary) in Turkish; ending the use of Arabic script for Turkish; establishing government control of the mosques (even attacking recalcitrant imams and destroying their mosques); giving women the right to vote; establishing a system that discouraged the wearing of the hijab; encouraging Western dress; and discouraging, in the army, preferment of any soldier who showed too great an interest in religion. This attempt to constrain Islam was successful, and was reinforced by the national cult of Ataturk.

But the past few decades have shown that Islam does not die; it keeps coming back. In Turkey, it never went away, despite the creation of a secular stratum of society that amounts perhaps to 25% of the population, with another 25% wavering, and 50% still definitely traditional Muslims. Meanwhile, Turks in Germany become not less, but more fervent in their faith. And Turks in Turkey, of the kind who follow Erdogan, show that they may at any moment emerge and take power — and slowly (very slowly, as long as that EU application has not been acted on, one way or another) they can undo Ataturk. He was temporary; Islam is forever.

8. That is why even the designation of some Muslims as “moderates” in the end means almost nothing. They swell Muslim numbers and the perceived Muslim power; “moderates” may help to mislead, to be in fact even more effective practitioners of taqiyya/kitman, for their motive may simply be loyalty to ancestors or embarrassment, not a malign desire to fool Infidels in order to disarm and then ultimately to destroy them.

9. For this reason, one has to keep one’s eye always on the objective situation. What will make Infidels safer from a belief-system that is inimical to art, science, and all free inquiry, that stunts the mental growth, and that is based on a cruel Manichaean division of the world between Infidel and Believer? And the answer is: limiting the power — military, political, diplomatic, economic power — of all Muslim polities, and Muslim peoples, and diminishing, as much as possible, the Muslim presence, however amiable and plausible and seemingly untroubling a part of that presence may appear to be, in all the Lands of the Infidels. This is done not out of any spirit of enmity, but simply as an act of minimal self-protection — and out of loyalty and gratitude to those who produced the civilization which, however it has been recently debased by its own inheritors, would disappear altogether were Muslims to succeed in islamizing Europe — and then, possibly, other parts of the world as well.

10. “There are Muslim moderates. Islam itself is not moderate” is Ibn Warraq’s lapidary formulation. To this one must add: we Infidels have no sure way to distinguish the real from the feigning “moderate” Muslim. We cannot spend our time trying to perfect methods to make such distinctions. Furthermore, in the end such distinctions may be meaningless if even the “real” moderates hide from us what Islam is all about, not out of any deeply-felt sinister motive, but out of a humanly-understandable ignorance (especially among some second or third-generation Muslims in the West), or embarrassment, or filial piety. And finally, yesterday’s “moderate” can overnight be transformed into today’s fanatic — or tomorrow’s.

Shall we entrust our own safety to the dreamy consolations of the phrase “moderate Muslim” and the shapeshifting concept behind it that can be transformed into something else in a minute?

Comments

The author, Andrew McCarthy, gently shreds an essay by yet another one of the Articulate & Degreed Class who believe they understand what “moderate” Islam is without ever — apparently — opening the Qur’an to suras mandating violence.

AFTER READING MCCARTHY’S ITEM, GO ON TO THE ORIGINAL ITEM IN “NATIONAL INTEREST”.

Logic means reason, men’s only tool of survival. It is a device possessed by absolutely all humans, and thus including Muslims. But it must be exercised by choice of each individual. Cannot be and never will be done automatically. Thus enter volition. They abandoned reason by their own free choice. If they choose evil -that’s it! No other choice for us but they must be destroyed for our own protection. We cannot wait forever in hope that they will return to reason. Our very survival is at stake here. Bosch Fawstin called it “dealing with Muslim Roulette”: one cannot know ahead of time who “moderate” Muslim is or how long he will stay “moderate.” Besides, it should not be our problem and business to sieve moderates from non-moderates.

I like your attitude in many ways. We must protect our societies from those who harbour malicious intention but it’s not easy to know the secrets in a person’s mind.

We shouldn’t demonise and hate on all Muslims but Muslims need to be educated about ‘equality. All children need to be taught that. Muslim schools will teach superiority so need to be moderated.

Islam must be secularised. The process of Islamic secularisation began with the fall of the Ottomans and Turkey, has made a fair transition. We can have peace if we help get rid of Islamic states and help bring about secularism because the most oppressive states are the fanatical ones run by religious freaks. Islam can be safe and non violent as long as it’s not in the hands of Mullas. Banning preachers would get rid of 99% of th problem.

Religious fanaticism must be outlawed all across the world for it is causing all these problems.

Preachers must not be given freedom to incite hatred anywhere not any preacher of any religion.

Also hadiths calling for war must be banned.

The Quran if you read it properly does not promote offensive war only the hadiths do.

Then make it OBLIGATORY to teach the equality of all humanity and religions from NURSERY school on wards. NO teaching if superiority permitted.

I hate people that think they can outlaw hate.
I realy hate people who have never read the Quran but try to tell me what is in it, if read properly.
Your proposed cures are just as destructive as the problem itself.

Thank you Spencer for re-posting Fitzgerald’s highly intelligent, insightful and important warning to all of humanity against the trap of believing in any possibility now – or ever – of a “moderate” Islam that can be reconciled with the non-Muslim world. His numerous historical examples of the failure of that wide-eyed, optimistic, and uninformed view should serve as irrefutable proof that Islam must always be contained, not accommodated.

In Wonderland Alice was advised by the Red Queen to believe at least six impossible things before breakfast.

In Realityland our Red Queens, PC-indoctrinated leaders, advise to do the same:

1. Islam is a Religion of Peace

2. There are moderate Muslims (No, there is only Islam. Islam is the Quran. The Quran is the word of God, and God does not lie.)

3. Muslims can embrace the Peace & Love bits in the Quran and skip over the slay-the-infidel bits.

4. The millions of Muslim asylum-seekers currently invading Europe are all fleeing “war zones”.

5. Western nations all have adequate screening measures in place to prevent the entry of violent jihadists who could jeopardise the security of their citizens.

6. Any migrants with criminal records will be expelled to their countries of origin. (Really? And how, when most in the last year entered Europe undocumented, and the rest may be from countries with which there are no forced repatriation treaties?)

@Robert
The article was written in 2004 you say. An interesting article with many solid points to be taken into serious consideration. I wonder if Hugh Fitzgerald would be interested in editing and re-posting it, thus reflecting any new “tri-sight’s” (hindsight, insight, foresight) he may have since obtained, and include it in an updated and refreshed commentary?

I have performed several searches for Hugh Fitzgerald online but all to no avail. I am wondering if he is a pen name used by another. Regardless, anyway of contacting the author to enquire if he would consider the above?

“Hugh Fitzgerald” is a nom de guerre. I have absolutely no idea who he actually is, but he exposes considerable knowledge of (and love for) both French and Russian literature, and an interest in Indian (non-Muslim) culture and history. He is a Defender of Civilisation.

“Hugh” began contributing – formidably – to Jihadwatch very early on – I think in its first year of operation and then contributed both articles and Comments within this forum for a good many years.

For a period he then concentrated on establishing a second blog/ website, “New English Review”, which complements the work done by Jihadwatch, though in a very different style, perhaps a little more sedate.

He has come back to jihadwatch recently for occasional postings, for which I am very grateful.

His recommendations as to reading matter are always worth following up.

You can find all his stand-alone essays in the jihadwatch archives…highly recommended.

If there is anyone reading here now, new to this site and this subject, who has not read any of these, then I beg you, stop right now, and click on the links, and read them, slowly and carefully. (You might need to get out the dictionary now and again; Hugh takes no prisoners, he expects all his readers to have a vocabulary as large as his own). You will not be disappointed. You will be educated. And seriously, when Hugh is all fired up, and when he is writing about what he loves, the man can write like an angel.

Hugh da man!
Essential reading for everyone, especially for those holding positions of influence within their government. Sadly, this information will never appear in the New York Times or be discussed on any main-stream news program because it’s simply ISLAMOPHOBIC to make an intelligent examination of Islamist supremacism.

The Christians in Mosul discovered what “moderate muslims” were like when ISIS took over. The jihadis went around to all the houses of the Christians placing an “N”, menaing Nazarene, on them. And how did htey know which houses belonged to the Chritians. The answer is obvious, Their muslim neighbors told the jihadis. When push comes to shove,there are no or almost no “moderate muslims”. The Christians are now in refugee camps set up in Churches in the Kurdish area of Iraq, but they don’t want to go back home even if ISIS is kicked out of Mosul, precisely because they can no longer trust those “moderate muslim” neighbors.

The thing that many refuse to see – and this can include not only expats who have lived for long periods in Muslim countries, believe it or not, and also even persons from Dhimmi communities – is that Muslims *are* taught to hate and despise and bully non-Muslims and do them down…and that waaaaay too many Muslims really do do as they have been taught.

Here’s something I came across in the comments to an article – an opinion piece – on Australia’s ABC website. The subject of Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims was being discussed by the commenters.

The comment – by a *non-Dhimmi* Iraqi Christian who had escaped and is now resident in Australia – was a real cri-de-coeur. It read thus.

DAVID :
16 May 2014 2:51:59pm

“As a christian who grew up in Iraq, for the 19 years that I lived in Iraq, not a day passed by and I wasn’t being targeted by the every day Muslims that I got to deal with. Neighbours, school mates, colleagues and the list goes on.

“Perhaps, Scott [another commenter – dda] needs to live in a Muslim community to understand what a hell it is to be a non-muslim living amongst muslims.

“Then he will understand that it isn’t just the fanatic Islamists that are targeting the non-muslims, but in fact the average muslim citizens that are, in one way or another, are targeting anyone who doesn’t share [with] them their religion.

“I wonder how would Waleed [that is: Waleed Aly, one of the foremost and slyest mohammedan spin doctors operating in Australian media and academe – dda] justify what Quaran states clearly: ”They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”” END.

To repeat what this commenter said, “As a christian who grew up in Iraq, for the 19 years that I lived in Iraq, not a day passed by and I wasn’t being targeted by the every day Muslims that I got to deal with. Neighbours, school mates, colleagues and the list goes on.”

Take note, everyone – “the everyday Muslims that I got to deal with”. THEY were the ones dishing out the harassment, the persecution.

More: “…it isn’t just the fanatic Islamists that are targeting the non-muslims, but in fact the average muslim citizens that are, in one way or another, are targeting anyone who doesn’t share [with] them their religion.”

“*average Muslim citizens*. That’s who is attacking and harassing non-Muslims, in Muslim lands.

And *that* is what many in the Infidel world are frantically trying not to see.

It’s not just the ‘tinyminorityofextremists’. It’s ordinary Muslims. Average Muslim citizens. To rephrase the title of a famous historical study….they are (or, the moment opportunity presents, they can and do become, all too often) “Mohammed’s willing executioners”.

9. For this reason, one has to keep one’s eye always on the objective situation. What will make Infidels safer from a belief-system that is inimical to art, science, and all free inquiry, that stunts the mental growth, and that is based on a cruel Manichaean division of the world between Infidel and Believer? And the answer is: limiting the power — military, political, diplomatic, economic power — of all Muslim polities, and Muslim peoples, and diminishing, as much as possible, the Muslim presence, however amiable and plausible and seemingly untroubling a part of that presence may appear to be, in all the Lands of the Infidels. This is done not out of any spirit of enmity, but simply as an act of minimal self-protection — and out of loyalty and gratitude to those who produced the civilization which, however it has been recently debased by its own inheritors, would disappear altogether were Muslims to succeed in islamizing Europe — and then, possibly, other parts of the world as well.

The above statement is so obviously true that a relatively intelligent third grader could figure it out, yet so many supposedly intelligent adults oppose it vehemently. Many of us have been saying the same thing for years, not so eloquently, perhaps, but the same nonetheless.

I don’t know whether to thank Hugh and Robert for improving my vocabulary or to get mad at them for making me haul out a dictionary every time I read one of their articles. 🙂

“There are Muslim moderates. Islam itself is not moderate” is Ibn Warraq’s lapidary formulation. To this one must add: we Infidels have no sure way to distinguish the real from the feigning “moderate” Muslim.

Irshad Manji also rejected the concept of “moderate” Muslims. According to Manji, for a Muslim to be truly moderate they have to be “reformed” Muslims.

The way you can tell the difference between a fake moderate and a true moderate/reformist Muslim is obvious. What the reformers are saying and doing could get them killed and I am sure they are very aware of that. See for example: universalistmuslims org

The definitive answer to the friend who acknowledges that one’s painstaking dissection of the ideological evils of Islam are irrefutably supported by the facts but insists on the relevance of his/her belief that “there are innocent Muslins in this country who have no idea what is really going on”. We can agree that they are in this country. Beyond that, if they “have no idea what is really going on” they are practicing evasion in the most extreme degree, which automatically disqualifies them from the category of “innocent”.

And if he/she won’t take that for an answer, have them sit down and read Fitzgerald’s definitive answer, again and however many times it is necessary before it sinks in.

Where did you get that idea? History shows that a considerable part of the pre-islamic Arab world was Christian. Many of those Christians were converted by conquest, or had their children taken away to be raised muslim, etc.
The Christians still in the M.E. are the surviving remnants of a once thriving Christian community that Islam wants to extinguish.

Muslims will never dominate the world. They are, simply put, not smart enough to do so. The teachings of Muhammed are a gauntlet thru which no muslim can ever get thru.

Muslims thinking they can dominate the world are like athletes thinking they can rule the world, when in fact they can’t even design the stadiums they play in, nor design the electronics which transmit their games. Muslims want all the glory and power, not fully realizing that it takes brains and hard work to achieve such status – but because Muslims are so self-inflated, they think they should have it all without working for it.

If all western powers are overtaken by Islam, it won’t be soon afterwards that China will destroy Islam. There are more geniuses in China than there are people in the USA. The west, with its abilities can keep China at bay, at least for now, Muslims wouldn’t stand a chance. Unlike the Christian west, China will have no “moral reservations” about destroying Islam, which the PTBs in China know is a stupid, but dangerous ideology.

If you worry about your future safety- Learn Chinese, buy a gun, learn to defend yourself.

Several Arab tribes gave their allegiance to Muhammad while he lived, but went back on Islam after he died. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, waged war against them and forced them back into Islam. In Islamic history, they are known as “Huroob al-Radda,” i.e., the wars against Apostasy.

In the majority, there exists no fenceriders (moderate) Muslim’s in Islam…..innate fear keeps them in lockstep to the Quran’s mandates…..once in there is no backing out.

————————————————–

The famed Texas Lone Ranger and his faithful friend “Tonto” were caught in the middle of a huge bunch of mean raiding Apaches by surprise …..the Lone Ranger, not familiar with the warring Apache’s tactics worryingly asks his friend; what do we do now Tonto? His former friend stoically responds “I don’t know about you white man”! Perhaps a metaphor like to my story below.

—————————————————

Muslim’s are very fickle I found out:

Before 911 I worked in California with a manufacturing company that needed high horsepower electrical motors for our machinery….after shopping around for a source I came across a supplier that had an Iranian American as their head salesman. Fuad was his name….a very friendly type of guy….who was very helpful in selecting the right motor for the applications. So one day when we were BS-ing around, as always talking about technology issues only. Never anything personal like our religions or politics. On September 9, 2001 Fuad returned with the bill of sale statement for me to sign. Conversation was short, for I was busy with matters concerning the plant. However, we traded niceties by asking him if Farsi was hard to learn. Then, the look in him you would think that I had called him an SOB, but I continued to mask what I had seen in his persona…….however matters got worse when I announced innocently that my daughter was dating an Iranian student to boot! Good thing I didn’t joke about Muslims then, whew!

Then came September 11, 2001: the day of infamy became the day that robbed our friendship.The motor supplier never sent Fuad to our plant thereafter! Fuad (meaning heart) never to be seen or heard from again. I guess his heart wasn’t ticking after his last visit to our plant!

Please view share and give a thumbs up to the following documentary, https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y. It reveals how treacherous Islam is.
If western governments collapse, the only people with any hope of a comfortable retirement are the ones with enough children to take care of them. Children use to contribute to the family income. Now they are an expensive time consuming hobby and are getting replaced with gadgets and toys.

Many think that other than the Terrorists all are Moderate Muslims. Former is less than 10% of the Muslim population.
If the conclusion is right, eliminating the Terrorists should end the problem. But does it happen? No; on the other Hand more come up as Terrorists.
Terrorists who we see are the Frontliners and they operate on the Full Support of Community behind.
The Frontliners and the Abettors jointly work for establishing World Caliphate for those who work for it will get janaah.
With the influence of Infiltrated Islamic Trojan Horses in the European Governmental Machinery, those Government leaders also utter, ‘Vast Majority are not Terrorists’!
Is there anything superior Muslims could do in the Muslim Countries, compared to the developments in Non Muslim Countries?
If not why people still resort to Terrorism? Myth of getting janaah!

In 2003 my 10 year old grandson and I met a very friendly and kind Muslim. I would take my grandson for an afterschool snack to his convenience store he owned every weekday….Francisco was his name. Francisco emigrated from Italy where he was born to a Muslin family. He married a Mexican American wife to whom he had great love for. His wife and his in-laws were very fond of him.

He seemed to be a devout Muslim. I say this because he sold Muslim oriented publications. However, I never saw Quran copies in his store….he sold beautifully calligraphy adorned poetry booklets only. However, I questioned whether he was a true adherent of Islam. I say this, because his store sold beer to his customers!

We lost track of Francisco when we moved to California for a year’s period, in our return back to Texas I found out that he had sold his business, while we were gone. Perhaps, his health had deteriorated…..before leaving Texas he told me that he was a cancer survivor….he had brain tumor surgery a year before we had met him at his store.

I stress his dilemma; thinking perhaps because of his brain surgery Francisco was a changed person personality wise! Could it be that he turned out to a person that espoused love and not hate! Throughout the past twelve years I always think about him and had made serious efforts to find him and his family whereabouts to find out more about him!

Could it be something in the ME environment has caused aberrations of their brains that makes them to behave the way they do?

Could it be something in the ME environment has caused aberrations of their brains that makes them to behave the way they do?
………………………….

This isn’t the case. Jews and Christians in the Middle East don’t act like violent Muslims.

But Muslims in many places that are not the Middle East–South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe–act just like Muslims in the Middle East.

Moreover, Infidels who convert to Islam–though they grew up in places other than the Middle East–act just like Muslims do there.

And those who leave Islam no longer wage violent Jihad.

This is not about genetics or some vague environment in the Middle East–this is all about the sick *values* of Islam and the model of the vicious “Prophet”.

It sounds like your friend Francisco was likely a lax Muslim–a virtual apostate.

Of course, it is also not uncommon to find that if one questions an apparent “moderate” Muslim that they turn out no to be so moderate after all–but that they hate Jews, for example, or believe women are inferior, or want to see the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law.

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer. in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.